Purdin v. Hancock

• Decision Date: 07 October 1913
• Parties: PURDIN et al. v. HANCOCK, Sheriff, et al.
• Court: Oregon Supreme Court

135 P. 515

67 Or. 164

PURDIN et al. v. HANCOCK, Sheriff, et al.

Supreme Court of Oregon

October 7, 1913

Department 1.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Washington County; J.U. Campbell, Judge.

Suit by Ira E. Purdin and another against George G. Hancock, as Sheriff of Washington County, and another. From a judgment sustaining a demurrer to the complaint, plaintiffs appeal. Affirmed.

The plaintiffs allege that they are owners of real and personal property situated in road district No. 29, in Washington county. They allege that the county judge and commissioners of that county, sitting as a board for the transaction of county business, "did on December 31, 1909, attempt to levy a special road tax of five mills on the dollar of taxable property in said road district No. 29 aforesaid, and directed the county clerk of said county to extend the same against the taxable property of said road district No. 29 upon the tax roll of said county for said year 1909." After reciting the amount of special taxes apportioned to the several classes of property in question, the complaint alleges: "That in attempting to make said pretended special road tax levy said county judge and said county commissioners, sitting as a board for the transaction of county business, as aforesaid, and constituting the county commissioners' court of said Washington county, Oregon acted without authority in the premises, and said pretended special road tax levy was and is wholly null and void. That no legal notice of any meeting of the taxpayers of said road district No. 29 was posted, published, or given, to be held in the month of December, 1909, or at any other time during said year, and no lawful meeting of the taxpayers of said road district No. 29 was held in the month of December, 1909 or at any time during said year, to vote upon the question of levying any special road tax in said road district, and no legal or valid vote was had or taken in said road district to authorize any special road tax levy on the taxable property of said road district No. 29 for said year 1909. That the extension of said pretended special road tax levy upon the tax roll of said county, for the year 1909, against the taxable property in said road district No. 29 was illegal and unwarranted, and said alleged special road tax was and is wholly null and void." It is also averred that at a date mentioned the plaintiffs tendered to the sheriff certain amounts which they admitted to be due in payment of taxes and demanded a receipt in full for all taxes for the year 1909. They pray...